User talk:Piano non troppo/Archive:PlanArchiveFromOuterSpace

List of micronations

You seem to have spotted numerous issues with this article- if it's not looking as if the issues are being resolved soon, I advise you nominate the article at featured list removal candidates. J Milburn (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. Doing anti-vandalism, the article was shown at random, so I don't have an established position on the subject. After questioning the validity of three reference links, and looking at other article problems, I decided to change the article rating from "Featured" to "C class". (I've never changed an article status in my years in Wiki, so this was quite a step.)

Apparently I've been drawn into a protracted dispute, and received a message from an administrator supporting my position. I found the answer as interesting as the article's issues themselves.[1] I'm unsure how to proceed. It wasn't my intention to get into a firefight. Direction or any advice would be welcome. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 22:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, firstly, you can't unilaterally delist a FL- that's what the link above is for. Personally, I'm completely with you- the article has severe issues. I myself became involved with it because of it's shocking use of non-free and copyvio images- many now removed or deleted outright. It should not be listed as featured- if it was to be nominated for removal, it would hopefully be drastically improved. J Milburn (talk) 22:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You didn't mention that it would take two hours to complete the process! Lololol. I'm adding a notification for anyone who has been a major contributor this year. Thanks again for your advice. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 01:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: WWII Collage

Thanks, and apologies if I appeared snippy. There was no call for that, particularly since the image was, indeed, nominated for deletion and partially a copyvio. Skinny87 (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

No offense taken! In fact the wording rather clued me in that I should fix my edit right away. Given the earlier comments criticizing the collage by Sole Flounder, I had assumed that the collage involved some complicated decision-making that I wouldn't readily be able to unravel. Proved not to be the case. Thanks! Piano non troppo (talk) 19:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to join Wikiproject Micronations

I note your interest in the subject of micronations.

Wikipedia always welcome a diversity of opinion, so you might wish to consider registering as a member of the WikiProject Micronations:

I look forward to working with you over coming months to improve and significantly extend Wikipedia's micronation content. --Gene_poole (talk) 01:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Gene, it's tempting. To this point my Wikipedia anti-vandalism and copy editing are similar to aspects of my professional work; it's relaxing to come here and "knock off" a few straightforward issues.

I've written a couple novels, and am convinced the worldview created there has a "real" component, and potentially a "real" effect. Therefore, I'm quite sympathetic to the notion that even a frivolous micronation might be a valuable social experiment. Perhaps an invaluable one. Be that as it may, I have strong reactions to fiction writers who pretentiously overestimate their command of the craft — the majority. How have the novelists failed? They haven't convinced me they believe what they are saying. I have a similar problem with some micronations.

Some micronations are like school clubs. I belonged to the Existentialist Guild at university. We had a pragmatic agenda: confront people's complacency. And we did, more than once getting into trouble. Was it worthwhile? Decidedly. Is a specific micronation worthwhile? I'm uncertain of my ability to ascertain, or whether there are sufficient facts to judge. Without facts, without notable action, one runs into difficult questions of whether a specific micronation is "Wiki encyclopedic". With Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your considered response.

In terms of micronations in WP, I take a prosaic, policy-based approach. When dealing with entities that may be ephemeral, tongue-in-cheek, whimsical or quixotic, I feel that is all that we can properly do. To do otherwise risks falling into the error of subjectivity and personal value judgement.

In my opinion, the only micronation content that should ever be in WP, is that which establishes its notability by virtue of being the subject of reportage in multiple, reliable third party sources - which are properly cited in the relevant article/s. There are a very great many press articles on the subject, along with several recently published books, and at least one academic conference paper that I'm aware of - so there's no shortage of reference material available.

Needless to say this approach automatically excludes the vast majority of "virtual" micronations, schoolboy clubs and other lesser, non-enduring, unsubstantive manifestations of the phenomenon. --Gene_poole (talk) 12:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Heads-up

Hi there. I'm shortly going to propose that this site be added as an WP:EL to both List of micronations and Micronations.

As the site includes the most extensive, up-to-date listing of micronations currently available from any source, I believe that it is directly relevant to the subject of those articles, and that its inclusion within them would significantly complement the existing content, and enhance their usefulness and the level of informativeness they communicate to the general reader.

However, before I iniate that discussion I firstly wanted to disclose that I'm the owner and primary author of www.listofmicronations.com. Secondly, in order to avoid any suggestion of WP:COI I intend to refrain from adding the link myself, should the eventual consensus support my proposal. --Gene_poole (talk) 02:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thmc1

Hi; saw your warning and reversion, just wanted to note that it's not only that article that Thmc1 has been waging his little NYC-is-the-mostest campaign - see this edit at Chinatown, Manhattan, which is clearly an effort to downplay even the existence of the San Francisco, Vancouver and Toronto Chinatowns. One problem with patrolling such edits is the wide panoply of "Chinatown" articles; see my comments about this on Talk:Chinatowns in Canada and the United States re the difference between ChinaTOWNS and Chinese immigrant/commercial districts of the modern era etc.....Somewhere maybe on Talk:Chinatown I wrote something on "Chinatown Overburden" too, about the reduplication/replication of overlapping materials across way too many redundant pages....Skookum1 (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

(Having read the Thmc1 edit you cited.) Actually, heh, in some ways it is refreshing to see an article that *doesn't* announce that its subject is getting bigger and more popular all the time. (Where are the articles about songs that dropped *most quickly from* #1?

Before I made my change, I did notice the discussion in Chinatown, San Francisco. You wrote a couple hundred words, working through issues with Thmc1's edits. The practical points you bring up are cogent.

When anti-vandalism "boilerplate" messages are sent to anon IP editors, they go overboard interpreting an action in the most favorable light: "You may not be aware, but your edit deleted a large amount of text...blah, blah...please continue to enjoy editing Wikipedia." Those messages seem to "work", avoiding rousing anger. So...writing that Thmc1 is "behaving like the First Qin Emperor"....

A senior Wiki editor wrote: "Argue with a person only three times, if you haven't convinced them by that time, you never will". I must say I've really regretted some occasions not following that advice.

I will drop in on Thmc1's edits, though. Ha. And respond, if I can muster the stomach for confrontation. Piano non troppo (talk) 02:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Just apprising you of an edit this morning, reversing a deletion/censorship/change of context/meaning on Chinatown, Vancouver. The material he deleted, and I put back in, are "standard fare" in writeups about Vancouver's Chinatown and its history, though I had not cites for them; but it's a gross oversimplification to reduce it just to "Canada" vs the comparison to SF and NYC. Part of the problem is that the onigoing confusion between a city's Chines population and the population of its Chinatown are problematic and difficult to define; by the loosey-goosey standard that he's been applying to the NYC Meta-Chinatown, Vancouver's Chinatown by his way of defining things actually takes in large chunks of other parts of the city, and some of its suburbs; i.e. both physically and demographically; but in terms of the local usage of the word, "Chinatown" only refers to a specific area, and doesn't have that many residents - it's a commercial district drawing on various residential neighbourhoods, eincluding hte suburbs. All the Chinatown articles are problematic in this regard, as well as in their ongoing pissing congtest on who's bigger, fatter, which types of Chinese live in each one, and so on. I've been to Manhattan's Chinatown, it's nowhere near the size of VAncouver's, as sween with my own eyes.....no doubt he'll accuse me of "propaganda" but it's always intereting how practitioners of that art revel in accusing others of it in order to accomplish their campaigns; somethng similar went on at Hollywood North quite a while ago....Skookum1 (talk) 15:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep. I'm local to SF Chinatown, and Chinese friends and I used to visit regularly as teens. There's another one across the Bay. There's a Japantown in SF that was consciously built (as I remember) to rival SF Chinatown. There's a lot of posturing going on (in Wiki and RL). My local Chinese market has started carrying Thai ingredients, and I never fail to get a comment from the owner if I'm buying lemongrass and coconut milk instead of cloud ears and Chinese rice vinegar.

As a schoolchild, our class was guided through underground passages in SF Chinatown that were used for illicit purposes such as smuggling Chinese women slaves. (In 1900, SF had whole blocks that were turned over to gambling and prostitution.) The Chinatown, San Francisco article is in part tourist information, and in part semi-politically correct history about immigration. But I wonder if non-Americans are equally aware that in the last decades Chinese and Japanese aren't considered minorities — are ineligible for aid programs that seek to redress discrimination — because they aren't underprivileged. Chinese communities are still strong (I worked for a Chinese company in the US), but they aren't nearly so focused on localities. The article seems to go from missing central criminal historical considerations to missing the changed role of modern Chinatown. Piano non troppo (talk) 23:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the preceding; a lot of Wikipedia copy about this, and of webdsites supported by Chinese organizations/activism, is both sanitized and (especially re modern conditions) very fuzzy and vague; in Canada national history now has only the refrain about the railway and the head tax, and the wealth and prosperity of Chiense merchants and gold miners throughout is downplayed in preference for portraying them as underprivileged hard-working people persecuted by evil whites etc (while not in the US, in Canada Chinese adn Japanese are still eligible for what would be called "employment equity" in USian and other race-baseed favoritism, especially in government hiring....and cultural funding programs...)....it's all politics and very little reality, and it often seems to be the newcomers who have the most cartoonish versions of North American history and also of non-Chinese (and cmedian Mark Britten, aka "the Chinaman", commented to em in email that the people who make the most stink about his nickname are the newcomer elements, while those raised in North America treat it is a joke)...that being said, Thmc1 has been at it again, though user:Emarsee has since reversed that, as I couldn't - well, I could, but it was on a 3rr-path if I did so. When I get a chance I'll line-cite both contestible items. Though frankly they're largely frmo Vancou er Chinatown's own promotional material and I don't know how statistically accurate they might be nowadays. Between precise geographic definitions and the difference between Chinese population of a city and how much is in a Chinatown, it's not a precise science....Chinatown, Vancouver, though, has precise legal boundaries, whereas Thmc1's version of Manhattan's is entirely unrealistic and includes lotsf non-Chinese areas....(and Chinese areas which are not considered to be Chinatown historically...). To me, the application of the term "Chinatown" to areas which are only Chinese commercial/residential but not called Chinatown is something like ethnocultural imperialism, ditto with the proliferation of Wiki content claiming that such and so an area is a "Koreatown". If Thmc1's definitions were applied to Vancouver, most of the city could be considered Chinatown; only a few areas do not have a noticeable Chinese presence, ditto with South Burnaby and nearly all of Richmond....and much of Toronto and, in fact, Calgary...anyya there's a certain Vancou er editor who I'll enlist to find proper citations/wording for these passages and there are some WP:Canada editors who are actually Chinese, including I think Emarsee....but Thmc1 bears watching; his complaint that "he doesn't know who is reverting" bespeaks someone who doesn't look at edit histories, or care about the reasons for previous edits; but only sees his own agenda, i.e. I gather he's new....I was going to send this to you last night as it was a reversion I didn't want to get into, being at 2RR already....looks like there's another watchdog on the case...but in general the whole swathe of Chinatown articles has had a lot of this type of edits and editors and they all need cleanup and factual-accuracy checks....and the removal of lots of directory/peacock type content....Skookum1 (talk) 12:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

4RR with Thmc1

I'm not sure if you're an admin, but if so thmc1 has reached 4RR, as he's now reverted twice on User:Emarsee, the same reversion he did on me twice....I'll also notify others who've posted on his talkpage who seem to be admins. This silliness has go to stop; his latest edit comment is "letter sent to Editorial Assistance requesting preservation of this fact and removal of inaccuracies". I don't think he really realizes what "editorial assistance" means around here......Skookum1 (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Technically it's 3RR, since the first edit he did on the Chinatown Vancouver page doesn't count as a revert. I'll definitely report him if he reverts again.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 21:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thmc1 just made a request for editor assistance here [2]. Administrator User:Jayron32 responded that his issue needed to be discussed on the Chinatown (San Francisco) talk page.

It might be appropriate for Skookum1, Emarsee, and others to focus on Thmc1's: 1) Removing sourced material, 2) Removing existing factual material, as in the edit recently reverted, 3) Edit warring, and 4) Their tendency to make good faith (if unconstructive) changes, giving no explanation, unless challenged, as in several edits with a couple days to New York City, for example here [3], 5) Making unsupported, subjective, and unencyclopedic contributions such as adding that one Chinatown does not "have the activity" of another [4].

I just read some historical hardcopy material (on another subject) from a source that is written with the quality of a casual blog; I suspect part of the problem is that Thmc1 doesn't recognize why statements that they "know are true", and for which they have respectable support are any less valid than anyone else's statements. Speaking as a sometime professional editor -- where I actually have to confront such people and get a resolution -- it's quite possible that Thmc1 won't change their attitude much in the short term. Why should they -- they reason -- when they know they are right, and the articles already have other material that is less reliable? It's going to be a case-by-case confrontation, where weight of editor opinion will need to be regularly applied.

(Btw, recent edits to Chinatown (San Francisco) were by a new editor with no other edits. They supported the reason given for my edit, and they admonished Thmc1; the sophistication of their reasoning suggests they are not actually a new Wikiedia editor. A WP:SOCKPUPPET is not going to help our position.)

Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 01:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Message from Thmc1 to User:Emarsee which copied in formatting text.

Hi, Piano_non_troppo! Peace, Wiki brother (or sister)!

Below is my response to "Emarsee":

[5]

Hi Thmc1, it sounds to me like you're on the right track. When I came to Wiki, I found the endless rules and guidelines extremely frustrating. (Especially since I'm a professional editor, right?) The "easy road" is to make minor changes to a few articles, then see how other editors respond. Another "easy road" is to get a mentor -- they'll help you from running into unexpected situations. The less easy road is to read the basic guidelines and make (and try to defend) major changes. But as you stick around reading guidelines is something you'll end up doing, anyhow. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 13:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Response regarding editing the Chinatown, Vancouver article

Hi, Piano_non_troppo,

Thank you so much for your insightful and very helpful response! I greatly appreciate it, and I will do my best to follow your advice.

May I now please be permitted to make the integrally accurate and entirely benign change to the Chinatown, Vancouver article as I proposed in the message forwarded to you? I believe that I have justified my statements and rationale appropriately.

Could you please also advise me as to HOW to check the edit history on any random article which I may come to edit?

Best regards, and Respectfully so,

Thmc1Thmc1 (talk) 19:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

No, you haven't justified your statements, nor have you provided citations proving that the material you tried to remove is incorrect; you HAVE made continued references to your own edits/information on the NYC article, but those are also suspect as people on various talkpages have pointed out (specifically Talk:Chinatown, San Francisco albeit re Manhattan). You are not making a "benign change", you are deleting information based on your own interpretation/bias. Stop painting yourself as some kind of noble crusader, and STOP imputing to others suspect motives when your own data is much at question. I totally resent your description of me as wanting to get even for you "correcting" me in the course of your edits; I do n ot edit based on such childish motives and have over 40,000 edits to my credit. That you have come to piano non troppo for approval of your intended edits without even trying to discuss the issue, or to provide the information that I and others have asked for ,is just plain silly (as well as rude). You have also misrepresented your one-sided and repeated edits as "proposed" when they were not proposed at all, but made over and over despite objections by other editors. And if you're looking for edit history, DUH, it's at the top of the page, where it says "history".....polite language is no cover for rude behaviour.....your claims about Manhattan are not supported by critics of your edits, yet you continue to assert them as if they were obvious truth. Maybe to you they are, but evidently you don't care much about what other people think or know.....Skookum1 (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thmc1, I've answered your question about how to check edit history here [6]. I find the third technique is useful to find out who is making a limited change, perhaps based on a particular guideline, vs. those who have invested considerable effort in the article, and may have a deep understanding of its editing issues. Piano non troppo (talk) 04:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yo

I haven't seen you in a while, Piano, but can you please block that IP who keeps vandalizing your page. I just reverted some vandalism he put on your page & i noticed he's on his final warning, which came prior to the vandalism I just reverted. Please block him. Cheers AndrewEnns (talk) 05:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, thanks for reverting that. (And the Edit summary, lol.) The anon IP is on his way to a block, right now. Piano non troppo (talk) 05:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome :)

Good day! :) You are very welcome Piano non troppo. To my knowledge WP:3RR doesn't apply when reverting vandalism... but your mention of it makes me feel like I should look into that again, just to make sure. On the article in question, the spammer was editing just as fast as I was reverting, so I suspect I may have to wait awhile, and go back to clean up the mess once they are gone. It's been great to finally hear from a name I see so often! ;) Happy editing :) -- WikHead (talk) 08:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Me again. I just took a look at WP:3RR#Exceptions to 3RR, and though I was indeed correct about the rule not applying to vandal-reverts, spamming (i.e. edits against consensus) is not an exception as I'd assumed. Thank you kindly for the heads-up on this... I'll be a bit more conservative from now on with persistent vandals. Regards :) -- WikHead (talk) 08:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Chinatown, Vancouver article - first line

Hi, Piano_non_troppo. No apparent response from "Skookum1" to my message to him, after approx 48 hrs. Will refrain from surmising any reason. Can I bother you to look at my detailed message to him about the line in question in the "Chinatown, Vancouver" article on his talk page? I'm interested in your take on the situation :) -- Just FYI, there really is no "campaign" for any vested interest at this point - but I do honestly feel, and indeed firmly, that accuracy deserves a higher priority here than trying to fathom scintillating comparisons.

I'm also curious, is there any editorial hierarchy involved in this situation? I don't want to put you in a difficult situation.

Thanks much.

Thmc1Thmc1 (talk) 04:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Nodding and smiling. Phrases such as "no 'campaign' for any vested interest" suggest you are becoming a "Wiki citizen".

May I suggest that you go on a hunt for reference resources? If you find related material, it will defuse the confrontation, maybe make for an interesting conversation. Google books can be excellent for this. (And maybe the online Britannica? Maybe another encyclopedia?)

But let me tell you a story. Once I saw an actor live do something. I read their Wiki article, and added what I had seen (it agreed and emphasized a point that the article already made). The editors who monitored that article politely told me I couldn't add the material, and removed it. I was new to Wiki, and I was ... annoyed. In fact, after being harassed by some idiot (when I *correctly* changed the number of movies in a series in another article), I left Wiki for years.

Then I realized that one of the big, important things that's going on here is a socialization process. We editors get socialized into a new way of thinking. But also the articles get "socialized" -- big business can't always just come in here and flat out lie. Movies that have negative reviews ... those reviews often enough show up. Some Wiki bios have quite unpleasant, negative information that no doubt the person would prefer not have widely known and discussed.

Consider accuracy and verifiability WP:VERIFY both critical. And...maybe consider your social role. We all get a certain percent of our edits reverted. Are there related articles to contribute to? Where you don't have to wrangle with other editors? Escalating this sort of thing can take weeks -- and some times one just starts a firestorm of comments -- where more and more people express their opinions, counter-opinions endlessly.

In your shoes, I'd look for references, as well as "greener pasture" articles. You've said your piece. One of the surprising things that happens in Wiki is that...days...weeks from now...some other editor will read the discussion page...and decide you are right. It happens all the time. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 05:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Response to last message to Thmc1

Wisely stated, piano_non_troppo. I will respect that advice and check back in a couple of weeks or so. And as you said, who knows - maybe some editor in the Wikisphere will understand my point and decide that I am right.

Thanks again,

Thmc1Thmc1 (talk) 02:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hotel del coronado edit.

I have reinstated your recent edit to this article. Your claim was that the phrase "A world-class hotel" was unsubstantiated. The claim is valid, and is referenced in the first paragraph and cited reference #5. If you would like to add clarity to the paragraph in question, I suggest that you re-add the cited reference a second time. Hotel del Coronado. Ljmajer (talk) 03:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "world class" is WP:PEACOCK in this context, i.e., it "merely promote(s) the subject of the article without imparting verifiable information". In this case "world class" has no meaning whatsoever. Citing a meaningless phrase, from a web commercial page promoting the hotel and providing reservations simply means the reference is WP:PEACOCK too, wouldn't you think? Piano non troppo (talk) 04:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't intend or mean to get into an argument over something trivial, but the reference refers to an article from the USA Today, which listed it as one of the top 10 resorts in the world (In the referenced page, you have to click the word "Show" after the word "hotel" for the list of awards to appear). After searching USA Today's website, I can find no archived article of said list. Since no link to the original article can be found please do the Wikipedia users a favor, and remove any mention in the opening paragraph, and any other place where it is mentioned. Cheers. Ljmajer (talk) 06:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism Slysoft and others

Today, At 17:39, you made several edits to Slysoft and some of there products. You claim that these products are criminal. This does not agree with them to remove them. Although anyDVD is illegal in Germany and possibly America (see Digital Millennium Copyright Act), this does not account to other Country's. The legal status in many other European countries is unknown and certain counties (like The Netherlands; Dutch copyright law) it is allowed to make (digital) backups. Iran on the other hand does not have any law about it (Intellectual property in Iran), making Anydvd a perfectly legal product.

Multiple users have complained about vandalism, please, restrain your self next time and don't remove entire entry's.

Tell the truth, don't cloak it...Eonfge (talk) 18:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The fact that shooting heroin is legal in Antartica is irrelevant. What matters is that it is illegal in most countries -- and so is the stated function of these products. Exactly one anonymous editor, as far as I can see left a comment. And that comment shows little understanding of Wikipedia rules, policies or guidelines.

I'm asking to have the articles removed, and I wasn't sure of the proper process in this case. Rather than wait indefinitely, I was bold in my edit -- which is what editors are asked to do. I would change part of the text, but in trying to do so in Slysoft, I found that much of the content described illegal operations, and that the references are WP:SPAM and WP:LINKSTOAVOID to Slysoft's own sites. I've now researched, determined how to ask the article is removed, and changed the article accordingly.

This statement on Slysoft demonstrates that its purpose is to alter a product in a way not intended by the manufacturer: "to remove/disable DRM restrictions and user prohibited operations on DVD films"

This statement in DVD43 indicates that it is intended to allow use in an illegal manner: "enabling DVD playback outside of its intended region"

The Wikimedia Foundation takes copyright violations in its own articles very seriously. The fact that something isn't illegal in some countries doesn't change the fact that it promotes copyright violation. Seems to me ... promoting copyright violation is contrary to the Foundation goals. Piano non troppo (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

You've been warned by multiple users now. Please stop vandalising articles that you don't agree with. You blanked the page for DVD43, That is by even the "loosest" of interpretations a violation of editing policy. If you continue to randomly insert point of view and other disruptive acts, you're actions will be brought to the attention of moderators who may wish to instil sanctions or bans against you. Please consider the entire community. Lostinlodos (talk) 05:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Get the facts straight, Lostinlodos.

1) Eonfge claimed "Multiple users have complained about vandalism". At the time, I found one comment in an "Edit summary". I.e., when they made the comment, there were not "multiple users". Not multiple comments. If you check Eonfge's history, you will note they have no other edits, except to revert my edit, and to comment defending their edit. This is a WP:SPA account, whose only purpose seemed to be to protect articles promoting products whose self-stated purpose is to violate the law. I.e., from all the evidence, Eonfge was and is a vandal.

2) All the blanking edits -- all related to the same company -- all with the same problem -- happened at the same time, with the exception of this one [7]. It is common practice to remove all instances of vandalism at the same time. Not my edits, but the articles themselves are vandalism, since they promote products whose purpose is to violate international copyright laws.

3) More recently, you, on the other hand, Lostinlodos, removed a notability tag with no explanation, except to say that it was vandalism.[8]

4) I also tried to make my point (after researching the best approach) by adding a prod tag to a single article. Nsaum75 removed the prod tag, citing [9]. And that is exactly to the point. That section explicitly reads that content may not violate "laws of the U.S. state of Florida where Wikipedia's servers are hosted".

5) I intend to bring administrators into this, because the articles in their current form do violate the laws of Florida, as well as international law, by promoting criminal activity. Piano non troppo (talk) 10:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I made previous edits, but under anonymous IP's. When I registered, I found out that others had already restored slysoft/dvd43 and thus considered it as 'multiple users complaining'. My choice of words was perhaps a little poor. I do seriously insist that Wikipedia stays a true encyclopaedia, no censoring, just facts. If you think that the articles are non-factional or misleading, you could edit them or expend the entry with a "legal status" topic.Eonfge (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your status, Eonfge. Let's move on to the main issue, and not get tangled in whether we followed an ideal path to get here.

Well-defined positions are being forwarded. One, as you've said a couple times, is that an overriding concern is that Wikipedia be uncensored. Another, which I was acting on, is that promotional articles about products whose purpose is expressly stated as violating international law should not be in Wikipedia.

I don't know about you, but I really have nothing to add to what is a fairly conventional position. I don't know whether you chose to add something novel to the basic stance, but assuming that you do not, where does that leave us? My feeling is that applying Wikipedia rules would either: 1) Delete the articles, or 2) Remove the statements suggesting the products are useful to break the law, or perhaps 3) Add tags questioning whether the software was sufficiently notable to include in Wikipedia. I'm not going to be so bold as to articulate your position entirely, but it's something to the effect that freedom of information is of overriding importance.

I don't believe that the Wikimedia Foundation holds that its primary goal is freedom of information -- at the expense of the law. There are many Wiki rules that limit what people might choose to "freely express". The question is whether these particular articles are governed by a vague concept "freedom of information" or by relatively well delineated international law.

Compare these articles to Lockpicking, which does not describe everything needed to commit a crime. (Which these software articles do, since all that is required is to buy the product.) The Lockpicking article extensively discusses the legal status of lock picks, including this quote, "Illegal possession of lock picks is generally prosecuted as a felony." If the articles created for Slysoft software also included lengthy sections describing their felony use, then perhaps that would meet Wikimedia Foundation requirements. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 15:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Admittedly not reviewing your history more carefully I may have again jumped the gun. In review it looks like you had legitimate, though misguided, concerns.
While I understand you may have concerns regarding legality, do keep in mind that the primary intended uses for the SlySoft products are to protect investment (personal-copy) and provide compatibility. There's plenty of discussion regarding the legality of these and related products, and, equally, the [il]legality of the DMCA. As it stands, recording a well-recognized industry leader (digital media backups) in one or more wikipedia articles does not violate any Florida laws, even if the products they produce currently do.
Forums have long been considered acceptable for company announcements on wikipedia as long as that is the primary or only source for company announcements. That's also been covered and debated. SlySoft's product announcements are made in the product announcements thread, now, and previously were made in more general threads of their forum. For now, until I can find better announcement coverage from other sources, I ask that you let stand the links in equal good-faith.
I did again remove the notability tag, as CPU, Maximum PC, and PC Magazine are all considered by the industry to be industry expert publications and reliable sources.
All else stated, I believe the multiple issues tag should be added to ALL SlySoft pages, but the pages should not deleted. The multiple issues tag would cover: additional reliable sources, additional third party sources, wikified, clarified, and adapted to better fit Wikipedia. Lostinlodos (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Fayez Sarofim

No additional reference given because the existing refence itself indicates a net worth of $1.8b, not $400m as given in the article. Click on it and see : http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/10/HZC2.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.254.165.57 (talk) 03:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I reverted my edit. Piano non troppo (talk) 12:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

re Manupatra

Hi Piano non troppo - Thanks for letting me know about the additions to Manupatra and for re-writing the copy-paste. I've been keeping an eye on the page, but missed the the most recent addition of copyright text, as I was away at the time. Regardless of whether they release it under Creative Commons or not, I don't think the company's website verbatim makes a particularly good Wikipedia article. Hopefully, the editor(s) will be happy with your, much better version, and will leave it be; otherwise perhaps the only way to go may be another semi-protection. Thanks again! --☇Kateshortforbob _talk☄ 22:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Carisoprodol and Soma and vandalism

I probably should just give up and unwatch this article, but I spent a lot of time on it a few days ago and I hate to have wasted all that effort. Could I ask you to look carefully at the article the way I left it on October 2, and see if you really think it is worse than the present version? The main change I made, other than removing some POV stuff, was to move much of the introduction to a separate section, Usage and legal status. My reasoning is that those 2 issues--where and for what indications it is used, and where it is banned or restricted--belong together, and the information is too extensive and detailed to be covered in an introduction. I have also found that when there is a lot of vandalism, keeping the introduction short and neutral sometimes reduces the meddling.Rose bartram (talk) 11:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Rose bartram. Maybe changing your approach, rather than "giving up". Some related issues?

1) 98.225.96.105 is making many edits to the article Carisoprodol including this [10], reverted by another editor as "good faith", but also this incorrect edit removing what appears to be a correct statement from a reliable reference [11], and this edit, removing material, and insulting me (after having insulted "Norway" in the previous edit) [12]. I asked them to explain their edits, and have not received a reply. If my edits are reverted by 98.225.96.105 again without explanation, then I will ask to have that person blocked from editing the article. (Since they have now had plenty of warning.)

2) It's not clear from your user page how experienced you are with Wikipedia. Two editors repeatedly reverting one another's edits — neither giving any explanation in the "Edit Summary" — is considered edit warring WP:EW. You and 98.225.96.105 are doing that. It's not a good position for you to be in, because you are making "good faith" edits, and are willing to discuss them (as seen here, and on the article talk page). You will have a much stronger position if you explain your edits in the summary. (And if you have an extended comment, directing editors from the summary to the discussion page.)

3) After looking carefully just now, I realized that you had merely reorganized material, rather than deleting references and adding your own commentary [13]. (I had no clear idea of what you were doing, since you hadn't left an Edit Summary.) I have replaced your last version.

4) As an anti-vandalism editor, what caught my attention was an anonymous IP editor making this unexplained edit [14], that adds the uncited and dubious statement "with a safety and efficacy well established". However your version had warning bells on it, too, (although they were much more minor) because this paragraph has several problems:

"The brand name Soma is shared with the Soma/Haoma of ancient India, a drug mentioned in ancient Sanskrit writings.[note 1] Soma is also the name of the fictional drug featured in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.[3]"

4a) The main topic of the article isn't a fictional version of Soma, nor is it about an ancient Indian drug. That a company marketing department associated their product with a fictional drug that has practically no side effects is just a publicity stunt. That material should all appear in a footnote, or at the bottom of the article (as "another use of the word"). But those "other Somas" shouldn't be mixed in the main text with a branded drug.

4b) Also somewhat trivially, the note format is infrequently used in Wikipedia. Perhaps you were trying to relocate some material for the very reason of 4a?

4c) The material in the note, however, is speculative, it's uncited, and it reaches no particular conclusion. (In Wikipedia terms original research WP:OR and unverifiable WP:V.) I suspect that even if references were found, they would be disallowed by Wikipedia (on those same grounds). I.e., the statements probably cannot be supported. (About hypothetical drugs in the far distant past.)

4d) The marketing department probably was NOT trying to suggest that their product was similar to an Indian drug, but to the drug in a highly visible book that's already been made into two movies, and is set for another major Hollywood release. I.e., the Indian connection is rather "second order original research speculation". (Speculation about speculation, as it were.) The marketing department may never have heard of the Indian drug. At any rate, the Indian connection is wandering quite far off the main topic of the article.

In sum, what to do next is wait to see if 98.225.96.105 is more forthcoming and cooperative about their edits. Also it might be appropriate to reduce the mention of the origins of the name "Soma" to a simple parenthetical sentence such as:

"(The name 'Soma' had been previously used in Brave New World.)"

So, thanks for your good efforts, and hopefully this can be quickly resolved. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 18:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You are confusing my edits with other people's. I certainly did include an edit summary when I moved material from the introduction to a new section. What may possibly have confused you is that I had to make 2 minor edits after that, to clean up some duplications that I had inadvertently created, but that should be clear to anyone looking at the history page. I have never had anything to do with the "soma" name discussion, which was there before I contributed anything to the article, and I agree with you that the less said about it, the better. Nor can I see or remember anything I was involved with which could be interpreted as an edit war. My impression is that the vandals--I believe there are actually two of them--have created such chaos that its hard to see who did what. I haven't "continually" reverted anyone.Rose bartram (talk) 01:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rose. Yes, right, I didn't check to see who had added the Soma material. Again, I was making a quick edit to revert vandalism, and assumed that since the material stayed, you somehow agreed with it. No problem.

Just a point of order, you reverted 98.225.96.105's edits here [15], here [16], and here [17]. And I if I hadn't stepped in to revert one of 98.225.96.105's edits, presumably (hopefully) you would have reverted those, too. Anyway, the idea was to let you know about the Wiki concept of edit warring.

The good news is that 98.225.96.105 has not come back to change the article today, and that your version has stayed intact. 98.225.96.105's editing habits suggest that they return every few days, so we can't call this a "wrap" yet, as they say in the movie industry. But so far, so good. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 06:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:Fictional characters who have mental powers

Since every person has "mental powers" this category has no encyclopedic meaning, and should be deleted

You are wrong. We arent' talking about the power of thinking, dreaming or remember, but it's about fictional paranormal abilities like Telepathy (used by Professor X and Jean Grey) or Mind Transferral (used by Doctor Doom).Brazilian Man (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Many people, perhaps most people, believe that psychic powers are real. Many others believe that prayer can accomplish anything. In those groups is a wide variation of belief in what is possible: some believe anything is possible, some believe only what they have experienced themselves or what they think is proved.

People will (obviously) assume fictional characters aren't robbed of natural human abilities. "What is natural?" That's my point. It's impossible to draw a line between what is a fictional power and what is not. Therefore the category has no meaning, and is unencyclopedic. Piano non troppo (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

(I'm suggesting moving this discussion to the article's discussion page [18].) Piano non troppo (talk) 06:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

There is an answer of mine on there.Brazilian Man (talk) 04:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

date unlinking

Hi, the original ArbCom remedies were revised into a more relevant form a few months later, involving proscriptions on only the reversion of the linking or unlinking of dates (and for some parties, the discussion of date linking).

As far as the temporary injunction on the mass linking/unlinking of dates, the definition of what "mass" means was always indecisive, but apparently refers only to determined, sustained, automated means of removing the old date-autoformatting (of triple-item dates, such as "3 January 1999". Where it is part of gnoming activities, it appears to be fine: User Colonies Chris and many others remove autoformatting as you do in passing as the gnome on a variety of clean-up issues, without trouble. On my occasional gnoming activities, I unlink them. I'm not even sure of the status of the injunction, which states that it will end if there's a community-agreed program for bot unlinking (there is—the RfC for such was in ?June, and the bot is undergoing testing at the Bot Approvals Group; the bot managed by User:Harej).

The unlinking of date fragments and other chronological items, such as "1980s", "20th century", "2001", and "17 July" is subject to community-agreed relevance tests set out at MOSNUM (and probably MOSLINK using the same wording). I find it hard to locate any chronological itema of this sort that are sufficiently relevant to an article, and usually unlink them when I encounter them, which is not often nowadays. Chronological articles themselves are exempt from this relevance test, to keep the peace. Unlinking "20 November" in an article on the Thai calendar, or in "2004 in basketball", therefore, will probably be met with resistance, so it's best not even to attempt it.

In other words, there has been a culture change, but it's wise at this stage to avoid participating in multiple reversions. Does this answer your question? Tony (talk) 08:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

PS I believe that common-term overlinking is now the big problem. Tony (talk) 08:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I get the flavor. It was the bot's activity, and defending that bot that was the source of contention. Date linking such as "20th Century" and "[[2007 in film|2007]]" was controversial.

As a professional webmaster for large knowledgebases, I've weighed in linking discussions in favor of reducing them [19]. A problem with linking (and also with categories), is that the level of effort is often disproportional to the utility. If in-depth statistical analysis were available on Wiki browsing behavior, there's no doubt that editing habits would change.

Thank you very much for taking the time to explain. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 08:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Piano, yes, your opinion is much valued for your professional experience. Please see Vassyana's query on my talk page. Tony (talk) 12:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you seriously not see the difference...

...between listing a STATE in which a restaurant operates, and listing the address of each location? If you do understand that these are completely different things, why do you keep trying to remove the list of states from Roy Rogers with edit summaries that indicate this is a list of specific restaurant locations? (Yes, I'm so sure that if we let this article list 10 states, other articles will list 200 states! No logical flaw in that reasoning!)

Every single article about a business will list the location of that business. Every single article about a chain will indicate what regions the chain operates in. It is one of the most basic facts imaginable in describing any company. In what universe could this possibly serve any promotional or directory purpose? Do you have any idea how big most states are? You might as well oppose mentioning what country a business operates in. Propaniac (talk) 13:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• See WP:NOTADVERTISING on this. Wikipedia is not: a substitute for Yellow Pages, not a resource for conducting business, not a collection of external or external links.
• There is no exception because spam links are only one to a state or a country.
• It's spam. Simple, unadorned promotion on behalf of Roy Rogers Restaurants.
• This article is heavily edited by Jonesdr77, who may have a conflict of interest, and who vandalized my page and was given a warning [20].
• All-in-all, bullying tactics to insert commercialism into Wikipedia. Piano non troppo (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• • • First of all, I'm the one who's reverted you the last seven thousand times you've tried to remove the list for absolutely no rational reason. Are you accusing me of being a shill for Roy Rogers? Do you think Roy Rogers is paying me to ensure that their article bears the list of states in which it operates? That would be a pretty insane accusation since I have several thousand edits and probably fewer than a dozen of them are in any way related to Roy Rogers. Maybe the person who originally added the list was a total shill, I don't know, but that doesn't remotely mean that the list is not valid information to include.
    • Second, what possible promotional benefit do you foresee Roy Rogers gaining from a list of states where they operate? Because a user might see the list and realize that somewhere in their state, a Roy Rogers restaurant exists? Are you suggesting that every single article about any commercial product or business should be whitewashed to remove any information that might increase a user's awareness of how to access or obtain that product? How in the world do you decide that this is spam, but it's not spam, for example, when an article about a TV show states what network the show airs on? You will never convince anyone that this information is spam.
    • Similarly, you will never convince anyone that the list of states is remotely similar to a Yellow Pages directory, or a "resource for conducting business", or that it is banned because of a restriction on "collections of links" (have you ever seen the Lists category? Are you planning to nominate every one of them for deletion on the same grounds you're applying here?). The whole point of the Yellow Pages is that it gives you specific contact information, it doesn't just say "you can find this somewhere in this state." No, there is no exception for linking only to a state, because nobody could reasonably think that a reference to a state is a Yellow Pages-type entry.
    • If you hate the user so much who inserted the list, deal with the user and take out the stuff from the article that's actually damaging. But the list is an asset, not a liability, and I'm not going to allow you to remove it based on your vendetta, trying to apply guidelines that clearly, unambiguously do not apply. Propaniac (talk) 18:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Your arguments speak for you. You are distorting the facts and being hysterical. Conversation ends. Piano non troppo (talk) 18:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm clearly the one distorting stuff here. Not the person claiming that guidelines apply to things they have nothing to do with (and who refuses to address any of the flaws in his argument). Propaniac (talk) 18:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Airship

Cheers. I now agree with your edit. -- Ec5618 (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy Piano non troppo's Day!

User:Piano non troppo has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Piano non troppo's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Piano non troppo! Peace, Rlevse 00:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! That made a very good day even better! Piano non troppo (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The Art of War

Hello,

Regarding The Art of War. At best the statement that "CA used Sun Tzu's strategies to program their AI" is ridiculously badly worded. At worst, the person who posted that is making it up. Now, I think the person actually meant they used aspects of Sun Tzu's texts in the storyline/gameplay, not the AI. (from editor Intranetusa)

Nods. Those are reasonable guesses. Piano non troppo (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Notable people

So far I am neutral to the issue. What I would do is start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:BLP or something like that. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice.

I ran into an interesting situation where a person was categorized as being "from" two cities, neither of which was where she was born. It seemed worthwhile starting a discussion on that basis [21]. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 11:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Marisa Miller edits

Folks, something is wrong. I didn't intend to make the edits you are commenting on below. There is no way I would change someone's measurements without providing a reference. Piano non troppo (talk) 15:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I looked over your edits to Miller's article and restored many of the changes you made, as they were unexplained and made little apparent sense. As I said in my edit summary, why unlink Griffin Guess, who clearly has an article, then link Ashley Degenford, who clearly doesn't? Why remove a Commons link? Why change EL formatting? Why remove a Rolling Stone magazine ref and a sourced quote? You cited policy in removing the official forum link, so I didn't reinstate it, but as for your other changes, I can't see what policy could be behind any of it, and you didn't provide any. In the future, if you want to make these changes again, please go to the talk page and let's reach a consensus before any more removals/changes as responsible Wikipedians. Thanks!  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 14:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I should have looked more carefully the first time and reverted your edit and asked for discussion. I didn't realise at the time you deleted the alt (alternative) description for the image, which is part of WP:ALT required for accessibility and just plain good web design. I reverted your changes in their entirety because it was the easiest way to sort out the mistakes but I would like to help you make changes you feel are necessary to the article. Let us know what you see as flaws in the article and we can look to correcting/improving them. First thing I'm going to do is make sure her measurements are cited (even if that is somewhat flawed as I explained). -- Horkana (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I was going to revert back a few reversions myself, but I didn't want offend anyone and wholesale reversions are kind of a pet peeve of mine, haha. As for Miller's measurements, they are "correct" per her official website, which is likely the most reliable source we have.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 15:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not especially impressed by people who make wholesale reverts and that's why I didn't do it at first but once an editor is making an effort to move things forward and not blocking others then it isn't too bad. You'll note that once I made the revert I then also (restored part of the edit) removed the Forum link which was the right thing to do and I'm willing to help move forward with other changes. -- Horkana (talk) 16:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Change of measurments? Link to the diff. -- Horkana (talk) 17:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, Horkana that's the edit I did not INTEND to make. Except perhaps reverting vandalism, I have *never* changed measurements in an article. Note that edit is not a revert, and not an editing error, but selectively targets particular numbers. I've changed my Wiki password. Thanks to you and Mbinebri for pointing out the problem! Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 20:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for your (other) edits. -- Horkana (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Autolt

Please, have a look before cleaning some interesting data, is there anybody to control your control!!!! Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.5.137.0 (talk) 10:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

"Interesting" applies to about anything on the Web. That is not the criterion for adding to Wikipedia. Please read the guidelines such as the one I mentioned on WP:SPAM. Piano non troppo (talk) 10:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Funke Digital TV

Was this a failed attempt to clean up spam from the page? Your edit seems to have only moved things around, rather than deleting anything. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

How odd! Thank you. I see another editor has subsequently done their own deletions, though. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 02:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank's a lot for the review, I thought about that edit for a few seconds (max time anyone ever really spends thinking on huggle), but still hit before it really hit me. For mistakes like that feel free to talk to be on my talk page in the future, Happy editing!--SKATER ^Speak. 02:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok

I am new to this. I want to make clean up. That is what I am doing. (159.91.151.97 (talk) 03:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC))

Thanks for responding. You are making a huge number of great edits! That is very valuable to Wikipedia. However, there are also a couple issues.

The main issue is that you don't explain your edits in the "Edit Summary" (at the bottom of the editing page). Sometimes one or two words are enough. Nobody makes perfect edits every time, and the "Edit Summary" comment helps other editors understand how a problem happened. A good example is the one I just mentioned on your talk page, which is that in a couple places you were using the Wikipedia article itself (or rather a copy of it) as a reference! I only figured this out, because in one article "popcorn.oneindia.in" copied the Wikipedia markup language [22] -- ("so many[who?]"). That's a perfect example of why edits need to be explained -- because no single editor is expected to catch everything!

I really want you to continue editing Wikipedia! Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 03:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The Host (film)

Hi, you edited the article, mostly in a better direction (thanks!). However, you removed a sentence from the start of the special effects section, which said: "While the budget was among the largest ever in a South Korean production, by international standards it was more modest." I remember writing parts of that article, and that was specifically included to link it with the previous section---which ends saying how the budget is really big for a South Korean film---and I think the article gets confusing without it. The next ref in the text (sort of) provides a citation for that part too; in it, the director discusses the budget limitations of the film and the effect they had on the special effects. Simply saying that the budget was limited doesn't help in clarifying anything, thus the explanatory text describing why there's no contradiction. Does it need some tweaking if I want to restore something to that effect in the text? Thanks. (October 23, 2009 by Bobet)

I know exactly what you mean; I'm ok, any way you prefer it. What went round and round in my head -- without any resolution -- was wondering whether the budget of a South Korean film was comparing apples-to-apples -- nor not. I guessed maybe three things were (all) possible: 1) It's simply cheaper to make a film in South Korea, 2) South Koreans are used to less elaborate presentations, so it's worthwhile noting when a South Korean film is especially expensive, 3) The South Korean film makers would love to sell to the international public, head-to-head with Hollywood, but they simply don't have the resources, distribution channels, etc. Are South Korean film makers trying to break into the international market? Would this be considered some sort of business success story because a "cheap" film successfully "competed with the big boys"? I wasn't sure. Finally, I was just reacting to the lack of sourcing (about my questions, lol), and the fact that the film cost had been mentioned elsewhere. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 21:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Lyrics

I was not aware of the fact concerning Lyrics Download.com. I have removed its name from the two songs in norwegian Wikipedia. Thank you very much for letting me know! It as allowed to cite Metrolyrics as a source? Best wishes! Mbakkel2 19 October 2009 14:45 (CEST)

You are welcome, and thank you!

A complaint that lawyers have about Wikipedia is that it sometimes allows breaking copyright laws. The Wiki policy is [23], specifically:

"However, if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. An example would be linking to a site hosting the lyrics of many popular songs without permission from their copyright holders."

The MetroLyrics site reads: "We take pride in ensuring artists, songwriters and music publishers are properly compensated for the use of their copyrighted lyrics."[24]

My impression was that this is good enough for Wikipedia. However, I need to check to make sure.

(At one point "lyricwiki" was allowed as an external link, but not now:

"Unfortunately, lyricwiki is known to violate copyright, so we must verify that the lyrics they list are released into public domain or under GFDL in order to use them. Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)"[25])

I'm going to ask one Moonriddengirl to comment, so we will both know for sure! Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 13:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm afraid Metrolyrics is about the same as lyricwiki. They have a rather lengthy explanation of why they think it's okay for them to post these lyrics at [26], but they also make very clear that they post lyrics without licensing: "Lyrics posted on metrolyrics.com are copyright of their rightfull owners. We receive lyrics directly from Labels, Independent Artists, and from site visitors. All lyrics are posted in our database unless specifically requested by rightfull copyright owners not to include them in our database." I believe that linking to their lyrics is therefore a WP:LINKVIO. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Piano non troppo! Thank you very much! Mbakkel2 19:11, 19 October 2009

Diggiloo Thrush

I wonder if you can do me a favour? Is it allowed to cite Diggiloo Thrush as a quote (Some English Wikipedia articles do so)? Its content is a mixture of lyrics and information about the Eurovision Song Contest-entries from 1956, the performers, backing vocalists, conductors, composers and lyricists. Thank you very much. Best wishes! Mbakkel2 17:36 (CEST), 20 October 2009

Hi. These kinds of questions are best for Moonriddengirl, because she is not only an administrator, but has a major role in the WikiProject Copyright Cleanup. However it looks like Diggiloo Thrush is worse than metrolyrics or lyricwiki[27]. For example, "...not all info can be trusted, as a lot of it is submitted by our visitors." ( !! )

She was very busy in the real world when I asked our question a couple days ago. But I think she assumed that I knew there are (now) no major English lyrics sites that can be quoted. I just spent time removing external links to lyric sites, and metrolyric was the only one I thought was ok. All the others (on the first page of Google search results) I'm pretty sure are not ok.

The basic problem is that artists own those lyrics. They wrote the song, the song belongs to them. Simple.

There is a school of Wiki thought that even linking to the lyrics on a band's official Internet page is a problem. But frankly, I never remove Wiki lyric links to those pages. It seems almost certain that the songwriter or whoever owns the song wants many people to look at it! Best Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 07:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Piano ton troppo! Thank you very much! Your help has been of a great importance to me. I am now in a process of removing all the references to lyrics websites from the English Wikipedia articles I have created. Best regards! Mbakkel2 09:43, 21 October 209 (CEST)

Spam on Snow Patrol articles

Sorry, I was not aware of that, I was the one that had added the link to the band's official website to the related articles. Won't happen again. Suede67 (talk) 10:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

:) Suede67 (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to WJLA-TV, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC) 23:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to KCWY-DT. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC) 23:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

As you well know, I consider your edits vandalism. This matter was brought before arbitration, which you refused to respond to in any way.

In addition to the previous issues with your edits, you reverted an edit that only removed scheduling information.[28] Wikipedia should "not list upcoming events, current promotions, or current schedules". I don't understand why you are allowed to flagrantly abuse your editing privileges, but I'm going to find out. Piano non troppo (talk) 00:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: You are unresponsive to...

As you know, I consider your edits vandalism and will revert them and warn you for that vandalism. If you are going to remove information, you MUST get consensus from WP:TVS first and then after getting that consensus remove the information from all pages, not just two. Consensus first. Also, don't threaten, just makes you look like the bad guy. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You refused to accept mediation[29]. What is your reason? Piano non troppo (talk) 00:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Because mediation isn't necessary. I don't see how mediation will solve anything. I am not going to change my opinion and you don't have any form of consensus (mediation isn't consensus) and refuse to go to WP:TVS. So, mediation is just a pointless endeavor. Why won't you establish consensus? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:TVS does not have the authority to override Wikipedia policies or guidelines. You feel that it does. That is the conflict. You interpret the Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but only as secondary to opinions of WP:TVS. (And those opinions, over the years, are largely yours.) It's been explained to you that Wikipedia polices and guidelines have priority, but you refuse to acknowledge this. Piano non troppo (talk) 01:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Aw, you took your conflict and vandalism to ANI. How sweet. Look, you aren't going to change my opinion, whether you have an admin take away my TWINKLE or even block me. You are in the wrong and if I don't revert you, someone else will. You are removing information, without consensus, on select pages. Why aren't you removing the information on all pages, I wonder? Maybe because you would be reverted and blocked in a heartbeat. Oh and the "opinions" of myself are those of others, they just don't want to put up with the constant arguements that goes with a discussion about them, so they let it go. You are in the wrong and now you are trying to get me in trouble for your vandalism. Nicely done. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

This is consonant with your other misbehavior and misrepresentation. I took nothing to ANI regarding your latest edits. I only responded to you here, and to User talk:Vicenarian.[30] Piano non troppo (talk) 01:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah right, it is clear your actions lead to the ANI post. You refuse to establish any form of consensus and my reverting of you and marking you as vandalism has struck a nerve and lead to some revenge against me for doing so. When you go to AN or ANI to establish consensus, bringing WP:TVS members into the fold, I will consider your edits anything else but vandalism. Right now that is what I consider them and mediation isn't going to work....and you can "make a case" against me all you want, it isn't going to change my opinion either. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea what you are referring to regarding ANI. I notified Vicenarian only because he was named in the mediation request.[31] I'm reacting primarily to your feeling that other editors and I need to get WP:TVS approval before making changes to any of (the thousands of) articles which you apparently feel you -- as a prominent member of WP:TVS -- control. I understand you are upset about having your edits changed, but I feel you are working under a misconception that that a WikiProject has a right to dictate content in any article it chooses to label as "its own". If that were true, WikiProjects -- taken together -- would be able to revert most changes in most articles as vandalism! Several editors have pointed out that WP:TVS is supporting edits that are: WP:COATRACK, WP:BIO, WP:V, WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:DIRECTORY.

You misunderstand me completely if you believe I want you to leave Wikipedia. There are occasionally established editors where I wonder whether their overall contribution is positive, but you are not one! Your contribution is huge. I see from Kateshortforbob's comment that you have announced your retirement. I strongly encourage you to reconsider. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Far Eastern University Article

The protection given the page has expired, and the same anonymous users and Unending247 have simply reinstated their edits without addressing the concerns. They've also been vandalizing my talk page. Perhaps you can help me with this? Thanks. Rmcsamson (talk) 06:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I know. As it happens, I was looking at the Far Eastern University earlier today in something approaching disbelief.

This article is subject to a huge range of misbehavior, from outright fabrication of a reference source and reverting questions of copyright violation without explanation ... to more mild rudeness and refusal to address issues raised by other editors.

In this recent edit, you removed an image without property copyright justification. [32]. Let's leave that aside for a minute.

First, though. You and 120.28.82.197 are way over the rule against reverting changes more than three times in a 24 hour period. (See WP:3RR) You need stop even if it means leaving incorrect information in the article. Edit warring is a behavior that can get you temporarily blocked from editing.

If it was a clear case of copyright violation, then your reverts would be more or less correct, and we should just appeal to an administrator. Unfortunately, there are three problems. 1) The site that I mentioned in my copyright violation notice has been changed. All the copyright violation material is now gone. That doesn't mean the Wikipedia article isn't a copyright violation, it just means that we can't check that source to see if it is. 2) Two other references that one would naturally turn to -- the university's official page, and the IABF Bulletin are both problematic. The official page reads "The FEU Website is currently under construction". It reads that the new website and format will be available in August, but here we are in September, and the existing website has almost no historical information. The other major article reference is a student publication that does not appear to be available online. 3) Next -- don't yell -- even though the material is gone, there's other material around that suggests ... I may have made a mistake in calling the article a copyright violation. At the moment, I have no justification for replacing the copyright violation tag on the article text. That's too bad, since it's an easy argument to win.

The arguments that we're left with are much weaker. Several of the paragraphs in the article conclude with a reference to the offline "IABF Bulletin of Information". Without that reference, it's not easy to question anything appearing in the whole paragraph before the reference. We would have to find another reference that contradicts the statements. Even you attempting to remove the mascot symbol is not entirely straightforward. That image has a complicated editing history that ends with FairuseBot labeling it as "not compliant", then seven days later removing its own tag !!

Let me know if I'm missing other major aspects of this. But it seems to me that we're putting a lot of effort into this. Effort that might be better spent improving other articles. There are lots of fish in the sea. With regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 08:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I replaced the copyright tag because it was removed without any change to the content that was claimed to be copyvio, and reprotected it because there was no progress being made on that front. In light of your above comments, please let me know how to proceed. At a minimum, the article is indeed a pile of unverifiable peackery. Even more interestingly, I can find numerous examples of copyvio of this wikipedia article on other sites... DMacks (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've put together a new temp page. It retains most of the page as it was before the anons started working on it, but I've gone over one of the PDF files they're using as a source and tried to incorporate that and other edits which are not incompatible with Wikipedia's policies. Maybe we can start from there? Thanks. Rmcsamson (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to delay getting back. I was going to ask where the page is, but it seems Moonriddengirl, a member of WP Copyright Cleanup, has rewritten herself and republished already, because she still had copyright violation concerns.

Also, since then: 1) Undending247 has replaced the suspected copyright violation material, 2) Moonriddengirl has blocked Unending247, and 3) I've replaced Moonriddengirl's version. Cheers! Piano non troppo (talk) 14:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Peer review

I've spent the past six weeks overhauling the hip hop dance article and now that I've finished, I posted it for peer review here. I decided to invite you because you're entire user page shows all the qualities that a good editor has (you're a writer, you like to contribute to an article's integrity, you provided helpful links for finding sources, etc.) and your contribution history is varied enough to tell me that you're well rounded and would probably approach a new article in an unbiased manner. In my eyes, those are good enough reasons to invite you. I would appreciate your feedback. Be forewarned that this is a long article. Not including refs/external links, templates, and categories it's 7 pages printed. If you accept my invitation to review you may want to print it first and make your edits that way. I found it easier to read and to correct when I did this. Although long, it makes for a good read during a lunch break, a bus ride, or pure boredom. I learned a lot myself while rewriting this article. If you like to learn, this could be an incentive for you. Gbern3 (talk) 18:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You just made my morning better, thanks!

I'm not an expert in the cultural movement, but I'd be happy to add a few comments that aren't related to having intimate knowledge. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 19:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Those comments would be welcome. I'm more concerned about the flow and grammar of the article rather than an expert opinion on whether or not it's valid. Just to clarify, I don't feel that anything in the article is invalid. I did a lot of research (from actual books, magazines, and newspapers—not just websites) and I added soooooo many references/citations. I'm just saying I can appreciate a set of "fresh" eyes; it brings a new perspective. Especially if there's something in the article that you don't understand; it would show me what needs to be clarified for other readers. Gbern3 (talk) 18:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Ballia and user:159.91.151.97

You might want to look at the page Ballia, I think you're on the trail of a persistent vandal. Same pattern going on there. Anniepoo (talk) 23:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. Editor 159.91.151.97 has made improvements to their technique since I first observed them adding unencyclopedic material from unreliable sources. There's still some way for them to go, but they are responding occasionally to criticisms about their edits. I just checked a dozen recent ones, and they were mostly useful, that I could see.

With people who are making a very large number of edits, something to consider is whether one particular edit reflects their overall contribution. 159.91.151.97 is prolific -- often dozens of edits in a day. If that energy can be channeled, 159.91.151.97 could be a very useful long term contributor. Best Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 14:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, that's a great response! I'll try to give them some wikilove as well, you're right, they might end up a great editor. Anniepoo (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

balloons for you!

andyzweb (talk) has given you balloons! Balloons are meant to uplift the morale of people with an illness, and has hopefully made your day a little better. Spread good health by giving someone else who is a bit ill a balloon.

Spread the good health by adding {{subst:Balloons}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

just spreading the wiki love! andyzweb (talk) 08:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Brenden Adams

Please add the article of Brenden Adams.

Brenden Adams born: September 20, 1995 height: 7'4.6" location: Ellensburg, WA, USA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.210.152.57 (talk) 07:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The article was marked for "Speedy Deletion". To be the subject of a Wikipedia article, a person must be notable. This might be established, for example, by citing an article about the person in the "New York Times". A name, birthdate, and birthplace alone don't say anything about notability. (As this edit after mine confirms [33].) Piano non troppo (talk) 07:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

What's in a name?

Along the same vein, just randomly saw an edit of yours and had to say - what an awesome name!! --Cpt ricard (talk) 04:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Smile. Thanks. I Latinized the endless struggle with grandmother's piano. Unlike Wiki editors, pianos do not improve with age. Piano non troppo (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Your report

I already blocked 89.105.29.146 more than twenty minutes ago (informing you since I assume you thought the report was just being wiped without being handled). Thanks, though. :-) -- Mentifisto 13:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I thought there must have been a crossed-wire there, someplace. Piano non troppo (talk) 08:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Pitcairn Islands

The challenges I thought would be self-evident given the place is thousands of miles from the nearest government centre and has a grand total of 50 people which is less than some elementary school Grade 8 classrooms. I just felt the article needed some context and an introduction. Feel free to reword it. 68.146.81.123 (talk) 17:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering whether such places tended to be "laws in themselves". There was something to that effect said about crime in the Channel Islands in the news when there was a scandal a couple years ago. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 08:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Omar Amanat

User 82.99.29.112 is continuously posting comments about subject in violation of NPOV without verifiable sources. Longstanding article with long history of editor and admin review is being vandalized and user is posting irrelevent and unsubstantiated changes. I am considering requesting page protection and would appreciate your advice. User is posting from other IP addresses all in Sweden. J araneo (talk) 06:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for writing. In a nutshell, I think semi-protection is necessary. But this is not a completely straightforward situation, and you should be aware.

As you observed, anon editing with IP's 212.112.167.85, 94.140.36.202, and 94.140.36.142 are all from Sweden. Is it probably the same editor? Yes; either that, or more than one person with the same goal. Are they trying to deceive Wikipedia? Not necessarily. There are areas where IPs change frequently, without warning. It could be one person simply be using different computers that are available to him, as he checks in.

You each have goals. You often present Omar Amanat in a good light, while the Swedish IP's often presents accomplishments in a poor light. (an example, your use of "co-found" vs. his of "provided feedback".) However, you both are sticking to (some) Wikipedia rules.

Where you both fall afoul is not being provably neutral. See WP:V For example, in this edit, he replaces your "has been profiled in Fortune Magazine" with "has had his name mentioned in Fortune Magazine". Consider the position of the reader! The statements are not quoted, nor is a reference given that can be checked. Therefore the reader (or the Wikipedia editor) has nothing to judge whether your version or the Swedish version is more exact.

This reference I checked supports your version, but not the additional material by the Swedish editor.[34] However, again, caution. The Swedish editor may have made a common Wikipedia editorial mistake — writing a sentence to read nicely, without considering the implication that the change is not supported by the reference.

Occasionally, the Swedish editor goes too far, and is clearly not being neutral. He agrees that Amanat was one of the "Top Ten Most Influential Technologists" -- but adds that it was "nearly a decade ago". This is WP:WEASEL which "damns with faint praise". A reader can easily discern that the award was a few years ago. And it doesn't make his accomplishments any less worthwhile.

Who is "right"? Generally, you are closer to Wikipedia guidelines, policies, and the Manual of Style. As a new editor, you may not be able to successfully ask for semi-protection. I'd like to learn your response to the above before I ask for semi-protection on your behalf? Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 07:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hiya

Hey ther Piano non troppo,

I saw you were working to defeat vandalism lately. Thank You! But I saw one of your warnings to a user 208.125.2.58 and I wanted to give you a bit of advice. In general, we give vandals 4 warnings before we threaten to block them. What most do is either use a vandalism program (like twinkle) or use templates. For the first warning use {{subst:uw-vandalism1|Article Name}} for the next use {{subst: uw-vandalism2|Article name}} and so on, until you get to vandalism 4.

However, that is just to make it easy for vandal-fighters. It really does not matter as long as it gets reverted. However, the most important thing is that you do not feed the vandals. That means that the only interaction you should have with them is telling them that their edit was reverted. Otherwise it just encourages them to come back and vandalize again.That means that this edit was not the best type of response. In all cases, if its just one vandal, you should have them blocked by reporting them at WP:AIV. Again thank you for your help! Tim1357 (talk) 12:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Greetings, I see you were right there to catch them when they replaced their edit again!

Generally I go for several gradually escalating warnings. An exception is when the vandalism is extreme. Several IPs are vandalizing the Kobi Arad article in a similar way, possibly working together: 24.39.156.23 [35], 74.72.122.244 [36], 08.125.2.58 [37].

I left the last IP vandal a personal message to alert them that there was an intelligent Wikipedia editing process in place, and that the persistent vandalism wasn't likely to succeed. In fact, reviewing, I didn't realize it had been going on quite so long. Time for a semi-protection, do you think? Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 12:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

When there is more then one 1 vandal, that is the situation to use protection. However, there is no reason to tell the IP that you are doing so. Asking them "what is your preference" is not very appropriate. If they vandalized after their final warning, then have them blocked. Also, it is widely believed here that saying anything to the vandals, other then the standard user warning templates, is not needed. There is no need to show that there is a process, they will see that when you make true on your promise to block them. Tim1357 (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually I went back and reviewed the IP's edits and they did not, in any way, constitute vandalism, or any other types of editing that would merit a block.

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia...Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism.

I know that the warnings do not mention vandalism, but the fact of the matter is that their edits were in good faith. It is NOT appropriate to threaten to block when the user is trying to do good. Please have a conversation with them, instead of making threats. Remember to stay out of an edit war, and to stay nice (and don't be meant to the newbies). Ask me if you have any questions. Tim1357 (talk) 21:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There's a difference between not biting the newbies, and three months of editing vandalism by sockpuppets with no explanation and no response to several established editors undoing vandalism. Piano non troppo (talk) 23:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

So its an edit war then? There is no rule against removing maintenance templates, so what's the problem? And who are the socks?Tim1357 (talk) 01:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yesterday Was a Lie

Could you fix the infobox the IP broke as well? Thanks, I can't due to 3RR. Sach (talk) 08:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. The new anon IP's edits need an explanation, not a legalism about how many times you've reverted. Piano non troppo (talk) 08:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Now one of the 69.23x.xxx.xxx IP's is edit warring to remove the COI tag, and also deleted the COI discussion on the talk page. Got an admin you're friendly with? Sach (talk) 08:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I've just been dealing with a similar problem on Omar Amanat (see directly below and above). I've come to the conclusion it isn't worth bothering with, because few readers look at the page. The same isn't true of Yesterday Was a Lie, it's getting several hundred hits a month. Another difference is that the IP's you are dealing with are not innocent editors, but experienced ones, hiding behind IPs. (This comment from an editor with four edits is suggestive: "deleting AGF violations; alias and sockpuppet allegations may not be made unless proven".[38]).

69.231.207.238's deletion of your talk page COI discussion could an admission that COI is involved, or it could be just trouble-making (consider how experienced the editor is).

It seems there is enough evidence here to put a semi-protection on the article, at least for a few days. You, I and now User:Wildhartlivie are all saying that the COI tag needs to stay for the moment. (I see you just did that!) I'll add my voice. Piano non troppo (talk) 09:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I also filed a COI complaint, for whatever good that will do. At this point I think semi-protection is the most important thing to get, since it will provide a bit of calmth. Sach (talk) 09:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Page protection at Kobi Arad

Hi there. Thanks for your message. I've reviewed your new request at RPP (and rescued it from the bottom of the page before the bot filed it!), and I've declined it again. Essentially, as there's now an editor, in a couple of days semi-protection won't work. Most of the tag removals are probably valid now, but I have re-added the orphan tag, and told the editor not to take it off until there are some links. If he persists, take it to WP:AVI. If the page goes haywire again, let me know or go back to RPP. Thanks. GedUK  09:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I do appreciate your time on this. I'll chalk it up as an interesting learning experience — perhaps earlier decisive action would have avoided work on the part of a number of editors. In terms of "what to do" ... "cut our losses"? (Consider the daily article traffic.[39].) Best Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 09:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It's one of those fiddly ones. I don't doubt that some admins on RPP would have protected it for a day or so, maybe a few hours. But we now have a new editor, and who knows what they'll go on to produce! GedUK  12:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Full marks...

... for this edit - nice to have a user who save us time! See discussion at Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism#backloged too often. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 18:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Software and IT in Pune

Due to the economic importance, the article should have substantial content about IT industry in Pune, although the earlier (unsourced) laundry list was unacceptable. I have added a revised section (with citations) in its place.

SPat ^talk 16:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The edit was just to "put the brakes on" a bit ... the idea of listing all businesses in India's eight largest city! You've got a more constructive approach going now. Cheers! Piano non troppo (talk) 18:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thmc1 appears to be vandalising once again...

I would like to report that user Thmc1 is vandalising the Chinatown pages once again with his Pro-New York/Anti-San Francisco Chinatown propaganda. This time he's falsely citing website sources. In an edit on the "Vancouver, Chinatown" page, he claims that a San Francisco promotional website (www.hoteltravelcheck.com/sfo/Chinatown-San-Francisco.html) advertises its Chinatown as "second largest", presumably behind New York. This is clearly untrue, as the website reads "THE LARGEST", not "second largest". I wonder what the logic is behind his latest actions? Maybe calling other people's bluff assuming that nobody won't bother to check?? Anyway, he's already been warned by you and another editor for the same offense. Thought I'd let you know.IanEddington (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC).

Hi. You've got a new editor name, but I'm guessing we've talked before? I spent a few minutes mulling the Chinatown, Vancouver article. It occurred to me that if the article was improved, the unadorned population figures might assume less significance. Here's my comment on the talk page [40]. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 14:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been mostly observing, but his NY vs. SF ranting is becoming a bit tiring. I am also quite familiar with the site in question, and to the best of my knowledge it hasn't been updated in a long while. Most of the sites out there blurbing SF Chinatown as 2nd largest are usually pro-NY sites. IanEddington (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC).

There are definitely the issues of bias and poor sourcing.

One problem, the "meta-problem" as it were, is that the Chinatown, Vancouver article as whole reads like a Chamber of Commerce brochure. Much of the history is simply to promote tourist spots or to encourage business investment. Phrases such as "unofficial boundaries" and "spectacular signs to changing times" are WP:PEACOCK, and a fair part of the rest is uncited original research.

If this was a scholarly, detailed article, Thmc1 and others would be focused on more important things than superficial innuendos that "who's biggest" is somehow "who's best". In a formal complaint it would be difficult to single Thmc1 out — in a sense he's largely doing what other editors are in that article — promoting a special interest.

Another example of this type of Thmc1 edit is Demographics of New York City [41]. Notice he's taken an existing statement, and put a "spin" on it. On top of the factual census data about "American Indians", he's added that it's "the largest ethnic Indian community". My attitude is largely "so what". I don't value the US Census' dividing people into arbitrary categories. It smacks of those who like to make dubious over-generalizations. Even of racism. Thmc1 wants to put a spin on already somewhat dubious information? Both the material he's working from and what he is changing are a combination of promotional and superficial. They are birds of a feather. Piano non troppo (talk) 07:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for fixing my incredibly dumb mistake. I can't believe I was so distracted I missed the blatantly obvious. After seeing that, I moved to a quieter place from which to edit. I'm glad you were on top of things. Happy editing! 152.16.16.75 (talk) 11:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all. Enjoy your peace and quiet! Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 11:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Notability Guideline

Hi Piano, I've just noticed you left this message on the scientist Sammy Lee's page: "This article may not meet the general notability guideline. Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged or deleted. (November 2009)". I see that the matter of notability has already been previously established - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sammy_Lee_(scientist). I am a WikiEditor who has been absent for some time (I've been busy writing books), and while I was updating his site, adding his Conference on Older Mothers which he held at the UCL on 18 September 2009, I thought I would add other citation ref links, all of which are fully reliable secondary sources (i.e. Observer/Guardian, The Times, BBC etc.). Frances Lynn,author 19:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, sounds reasonable. I removed the tag. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 03:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Cheers! 80.177.220.23 (talk) 13:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Ray

I've explained on the article talk page why your removal is not justified and is not supported by the references. If you are unwilling to discuss and find consensus prior to removal of sourced information, I may need to report you to other forums. Gimmetrow 00:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Get your facts straight. I removed incorrect material and explained why on the talk page. You reverted, giving only this explanation in the Edit Summary: "Undid revision 328276171 read the reference".[42] You did not contribute to the talk page at that point, or otherwise discuss your reasons. Subsequently I again reverted your edits, but only then did you decide to discuss on the talk page.

The only reliable reference -- the very one you quote -- suggests that the representative of the "American College Dictionary" was wrong in ascribing the coinage to Ray. I don't see what your point is. Piano non troppo (talk) 01:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The facts are that you removed the info a second time without a reply on the talk page. Take care what is ascribed to whom. The reference says the OAD representative ascribed coinage. Then the reference says "some lexicography buffs" dispute that the word should be in the dictionary (because an acronym is not a word), and "then there are those who gripe" that the word predates Ray. The reference does not endorse these views. On the contrary - it obliquely characterizes them as "hateration toward Ms. Ray" (apparently using another word added to the dictionary). Gimmetrow 03:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Here are the dates and times:

November 27, 22:27. I make this edit [43], with this Edit Summary "Removes claims about words she's coined that are highly contested, even in one of the references given. See discussion."

November 27, 22:44 to 23:09. I add this section to the Rachael Ray talk page [44]

You have made no contribution to the talk page.

November 28, 00:50. You make this edit to the article [45]. As I said above, your only explanation was in the edit summary "Undid revision 328276171 read the reference".

November 28, 00:50 to 00:53. You answer on the talk page.

November 28 00:52. Not seeing that you have answered on the talk page (probably because there was nothing there when I started my edit), I redo my edit with this Edit Summary "Address the issue on the discussion page, or I will file a complaint against your edits as vandalism."

Therefore:

• 1) You are flatly wrong saying "that you removed the info a second time without a reply on the talk page". I changed the information once.
• 2) You ignored my request in the Edit Summary to contribute to the talk page discussion. But instead waved it off with "read the reference". (I obviously had.) I.e., I was following process, and you were not.
• 3) Since I did not realize that you had responded on the talk page before the second edit, I was only responding to the situation as I understood it at the time. I.e., I was again following process.
• 4) Your attitude, that taking part of a single reference out-of-context, to support promotional statements in the article — statements that the reference itself suggests are dubious — is a fine example of how a Wiki editor can support falsehood under the guise of WP:V. Pat yourself on the back for a great day's work. Piano non troppo (talk) 07:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The given source says that an OAD rep credited her with coining, and that's what the wiki article says. That's not out-of-context. I've suggested what you could add that would be in-line with the source. Gimmetrow 13:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually an apology from you would be what I was most interested in, at this point. Piano non troppo (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

If, as you say, you didn't see any answer on the talk page "probably because there was nothing there when [you] started [your] edit", then you started your edit (a pure revert with no other changes) within 30 seconds of my edit to the article, and didn't finish it until at least 1:18 later, during which you wrote an edit summary accusing me of vandalism [46] for restoring information you removed - a removal you should have expected would be opposed. So OK, I'm sorry I didn't drop a note on the talk page before reverting your removal of sourced information instead of doing it 30 seconds after. Gimmetrow 20:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for giving me credit for my edit of "Space colonization" on the 26th of November. NASA, JPL and the others who actually did the work deserve the credit. Now and then a significant fact will slip by people who are actively maintaining articles. The continued maintenance deserves credit. Anyone can throw in an added fact now and then. I help when I can.--Fartherred (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

MWT

thanks for your anti-vandalism work. Please do try to avoid situations like this, though. You have to check what you're reverting to. Enigma^msg 21:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the appreciation, it does help some days.

Ah, I see what happened. MWT shows the current version, and the next most recent version. A revert takes out every edit that the editor just made. But comparing, I only looked at the trailing IP numbers, both were 130. So I reverted from one "130 vandal" to a different "130 vandal". Thanks for noticing this. (Another potential improvement for MTW, if I ever get around to playing with the code.) Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The good news is that both 130 vandals and the other IP are all blocked. :) Enigma^msg 22:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Personnel sections and "over-linking"

Personnel sections are supposed to include wiki-links even if the person has been linked prior to the section in the article. That is per music project guidelines. — John Cardinal (talk) 16:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Oh, I see, you're talking about a few edits I made in passing while removing lyric copyright violation external links. E.g., this one.[47]. That's makes a certain sense, and it probably looks stylistically better, anyhow. In those cases, I feel your edit is best, but you might want to take a quick look here [48] to see some pragmatic issues that aren't always factored in linking considerations. Cheers! Piano non troppo (talk) 21:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I am sure WP:ALBUMS took the pragmatic issues into consideration when they specified the guidelines. — John Cardinal (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's something I've written on, and been asked to comment on in WP:LINKING. Most people are utterly unaware that links are rarely used and more often more of an editorial burden and reader inconvenience than a help. Very few Wiki editors have been web masters for large public knowledgebases, so there's no way they would know. Piano non troppo (talk) 22:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

WTF?

I MADE A JOKE AND 2 MINUTES LATER IT WAS CORRECTED!?!??! WTF???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.241.45 (talk) 10:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

re User talk:Kateshortforbob/Archives2009/December#Advice again on where to take a dispute

Hi Piano non troppo - Sorry it's taken me so long to reply to your message: I haven't been as active as I'd like on WP the past couple of weeks!

I'm not sure how useful any advice I have might be, as I don't have a great deal of experience with dispute resolution on Wikipedia. If you've tried mediation and RfCs and have brought it up at the appropriate Wikiproject with no success, the best thing to do might be to lay out the problem(s) on one of the noticeboards; I have had very good experiences with them before: the editors who respond are generally knowledgeable in the area, and having fresh eyes on a matter is generally beneficial. I would think either the Content Board or Admin's Incident Board would be appropriate. I notice that User:Neutralhomer is currently under under a short block, apparently for not following policy on non-free images on TV station articles. If there is a pattern of non-adherence to Wikipedia policy, that is a concern, and I think that some action would have to be taken there (ANI would probably be best for that). Neutralhomer's ability to respond to any report will be limited (his responses can be copied/transcluded from his talk page) until his block expires tomorrow or is otherwise lifted.

Apologies again for the delay in replying! --Kateshortforbob _talk 14:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Help

Hi mate, i have been translating this article from Arabic and French sources and i feel like I made a huge mess. When it is read, you can obviously deduce that the editor (myself) was translating his arabic/french thoughts into English. Would you take a look at it and maybe gimme a lil advice on how to better organize my writing process ( you being a professional editor and all) Don't mind the works list i will move it. thanks Eli+ 15:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Great job! It's interesting, factual and sourced. My goodness! Please continue!

In writing, there are are always small matters for possible improvement. (Arthur C. Clarke, after years, rewrote one of his fine stories, but didn't improve it in any substantial way, imho.) At some point, a writer needs to be "internally directed". I think you're there. With Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks mate your are too kind, your compliments almost convinced me. I have always thought my english writing skills were "Fringlishy". I truly appreciate you taking the time to take a look at Emily's page and thank you for you kind words of encouragement, they meant a great deal to me. Eli+ 16:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Who can edit

Just what is it about you that makes you extraordinarily competent to remove someone else's edits? It is an informative page, not an advertisment. Eye Disagree (talk) 16:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

From your formatting, which was HTML, but not Wiki-specific, I take it you are a new editor. I don't know which edit is under discussion -- let me know.

Anybody can edit Wikipedia. Material is often removed, and "tags" are often placed even by editors with a couple weeks experience. (I've done 10,000s of Wiki edits over years, and in the real world I've been a professional editor for major companies.)

Often enough people come to Wikipedia with the expectation that because it's free and accessible, they can write anything they want, but in fact there is material that is 100% unacceptable. Promotional material is not always unacceptable ... but often it is. Some promotional guidelines are set out in WP:SPAM.

In the Wiki world, marking an article as an advertisement, or removing promotional material is common. If I was representing a business, I would do a couple things. First, I would explain my relationship on the discussion page, as described in WP:COI. Second, I would organize my priorities. The worst thing that can happen to a Wikipedia article is for it to be deleted. A less bad thing is having several tags at the top suggesting that the material is questionable. Having a single, mild tag and having some small amount of text removed ... that's closer to the "I can live with it" situation. The Wiki rules, guidelines and policies can be daunting for a new editor. A shortcut is to use featured articles as templates.[49] Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 00:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I have read the WP:SPAM section and have no idea how you got there?

The article is a detailed technical and historical description of a homebuilt aircraft. Perhaps you don't know anything about that topic? Furthermore, there is not a hint of solicitation in the article, which would merit your editorial. In conclusion, if your other 10000 edits are of this quality then they should all be removed. Like this one.

Eye Disagree (talk) 11:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It would help if I had some idea of what article you are talking about. Piano non troppo (talk) 11:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

After research, now I know what article you are talking about, Dyke Delta. Phrases such as "marketed for homebuilding", and "The plans are available from John Dyke, who now resides in Fairborn, Ohio" strongly indicate, not only advertising, but conflict of interest. According to WP:COI, I am asking you to "declare your interest" in this article. Piano non troppo (talk) 12:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

My interest in this article is to get people like you to stop editing what you don't know

anything about. Using your example the article about New York Times must be marked an advertisment since it is available to people in various ways.

If you are such a high-caliber

editor; a member of the selfproclaimed anti-spam people, then edit it to your satisfaction. But don't just state that it's an ad. It is e.g. useful to us who are interested in homebuilt aircraft to know wether it is avilable or if it is not available anymore. I found this article via Google, of course, and I learned lots from reading it, and I found useful source material from its links. Ergo, it is a useful article. Btw, what reference do you find questionable? Jane's? EAA Publications? Do you know anything about either? Maybve you should look them up? E.g. in Wikipedia.

I looked at your editing history and your are all over the place. What do you know about Swedish

Phonology? I'm Swedish. I know lots. I could discuss that article but what did you contribute?

Korean Airlines? What do you care?

Are you one of these self-proclaimed Wiki-Gods whose opinion is always the right one? There is a

Wikipedia article about that...

Eye Disagree (talk) 13:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I.e., you're someone who likes a fight. Take it elsewhere. Piano non troppo (talk) 13:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that is rich. Dismiss me as argumentative because I dare defy YOU, the Wiki-God.

Sure, I'll take it elsewhere. As soon as you stop editing articles you don't know anything about. Or start editing them, rather than just labelling them. If you are an EDITOR then EDIT the article you find in error. Otherwise I suggest joining a book-club. But then, you'd just complain about the books, not have any actual opinion, wouldn't you?

Eye Disagree (talk) 13:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Strange you should mention it. I have a number of Jane's annuals, hardcopy, on my shelf. They make nice browsing.

You, like many critics, are under the impression that no one but a "self-proclaimed" expert has a right to express an opinion. Welcome to Wikipedia. And to a public view where aggressive assholes can be put properly in their place. Piano non troppo (talk) 14:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Flag carrier

I noticed that you removed the perfectly inoffensive "flag carrier" from Korean Airlines with the comment "What is a flag carrier?" As the phrase was wikilinked, and appropriate, I'm a little surprised that you removed it. Perhaps you should take a little more care when deleting material. cojoco (talk) 11:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I should have been clearer. I don't think the term has a fixed meaning that's worth noting in an encyclopedia. If I understand correctly, it's like labels on jam jars reading "by appointment to her majesty the queen". Royal Warrant I.e., it's some nebulous business deal of no fixed status, and no particular note to the general public. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 11:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should nominate "Flag Carrier" for deletion. I doubt you would succeed. cojoco (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, an analogy might be companies adding their trademark and copyright to Wiki articles — contrary to the MOS. The Flag carrier article is heavily marked with tags requesting references and claiming it's original research — not an article I would link to, myself. Finally, speaking of MOS, "&" is not used in place of "and" in formal writing, except, for example, in company titles. So, all-in-all, you might be the one to "take a little more care" editing? Piano non troppo (talk) 02:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Bye and Happy Christmas

Please accept my advanced Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.I will not be able to wish you on those days as I will be taking a Wiki break for one month starting tomorrow. Also wishing you a Happy editing.. :)  arun  talk  07:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Your unwelcomed and destructive help.

Wiki user rating: for the time you invested: 1 point. Helpfulness: 0 point. Makes 1 out of 5 points in total. --Hans Joachim Koerver 14:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Contre-bass, I have to correct: 0 points in total - I see you started already this morning to mutilate pages of mine SM U-109. Pack "Coyote", or pack "Burned Soil", I assume ? --Hans Joachim Koerver 22:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC). Check my talk for details. --Hans Joachim Koerver 22:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

"Burned soil"? You asked an administrator to delete all the pages that you created! That is "burned soil". I demonstrated in a single article example, largely for the administrator's benefit,[50] that it would be simple to produce a Wiki version of the topic. (I note that another editor has already accepted the substance of my change, and begun to work with my version.[51])

Your bizarre logic again: I created the articles, but the project idea was rebuffed by people like you, and now me as cretor should not have the chance to retire my work, as I will not waste a minute more in Wiki articles ? For what reason should they stay here in a form that you rated not Wiki-conform ? Do you want to overwork all 110 artickes concerned ? Please feel free to do so. I will not do your work. AchimKoerver (talk) Hans Joachim Koerver 12:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

"Constructive" in your frame of reference means being allowed to spam Wikipedia with dozens of trivial new articles referencing your book. Piano non troppo (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

"dozens of trivial new articles". Yes, yes: all 75 were rated start class or stubs for “Military history WikiProject”, “WikiProject Ship”, and “WikiProject Germany”" AchimKoerver (talk) Hans Joachim Koerver 12:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

"referencing your book." : yes, the info comes from my book. What else should I reference - the Bible ? The same logic as in your arguments, that I used "too many" references and links in my articles. Saw that you already started to delete this at SM U-109. Dont forget the other articles between SM U-6 and SM U-117 ;-))) In any case, a nice joke between historians, I will note it down. Its like one musicians says to the other that he uses too many music notes in his pieces. Or physicians: too many formulas. Ok, you seem to have changed your mind now. Very wise, my arguing with you seemed to have helped to give you some clearer ideas, as yours showed to be all quite subjective and emotional. AchimKoerver (talk) Hans Joachim Koerver 12:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh Gott, what a slimy and false snake you are. You are telling LIES behind my back about me [52]) to others, that you wouldnt dare to repeat on my talk page, where all your subjective and emotional arguments didnt score any point in discussion. You are really disgusting. Its because of black charactered people like you, that Wiki goes down. You MUST be 5th column. AchimKoerver (talk) Hans Joachim Koerver 12:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes its really hard to slow the momentum of a new editor gracefully.

More or less greasefully, I think. How many time they take at Wiki to make down Newbies ! And what a joy it is - look here - [53].

AchimKoerver (talk) Hans Joachim Koerver 12:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Contre-Bass, soo much time invested in pure negativism, only to try to make down a newbie ? Why didnt you from the beginning try to propose ameliorisations to a Newbie, which you start now a little bit, after I have retired (bad conscience?). In any case its a nice devote byzantian style, in which you try now to justify yourself before the seniors. What a roaring sergent-major fun it must be to make down newbies ! Ha, ha, ha. Such, such were the joys ... You are really a great Des-tributor before the Lord. And an obvious LIER, who denounces others behind their back with non-existing or false proofs. Shame on you. --Hans Joachim Koerver 18:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

Thanks very much for your editing of [[Legally Blonde (musical). I would never have picked up on all those! Here's to GA eventually hahaMark E (talk) 14:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD of Kobi Arad and sockpuppetry of its creator Knoblauch129

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kobi Arad
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Knoblauch129

Your comments welcome! --Jubilee♫clipman 04:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but profanity is disallowed in Wikipedia. Lolololol. All right, all right. Thank you, I'll have a look. Piano non troppo (talk) 05:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Ibrahim Shkupolli

Hi, Piano non troppo (?, interesting 'name'),
Concur entirely with you on lack of notability as per my comments on the articles talk page. There is already a 2009 Espoo shopping mall shooting article. Do you know how to start the ball rolling for mergeing, at least, with the other article? --220.101.28.25 (talk) 14:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This may be a bit of a hot topic. It's already been nominated for speedy deletion. I threw out my 2 cents, and planned to let it go at that. Unless you enjoy confused conversation, you might want to just let matters take their course? Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 15:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

tb

Hello, Piano non troppo. You have new messages at Seb az86556's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

This> {{uw-spam1}} has a talkpage. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 15:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks. One is never quite sure about the proper place for "one off" comments. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Peer1

I added the Advert tag to the PEER 1 article because *some* of it seems like advertising, not all. In addition, it does seem, to me anyways, to be written from a pro-company point of view.74.214.250.169 (talk) 09:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Right as rain. Cheers, Piano non troppo (talk) 09:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Candice Swanepoel

I'm somewhat confused by your edit summary in Swanepoel's article in returning the notability tag. Saying "She's somebody who does a job. That, alone, doesn't make anybody notable. Or is someone claiming that being a model is more important than being a doctor or a professor?" makes it seem a lot like you're judging her notability based on your opinion of her profession's merit. That's not what notability is about. I mean, hell, Paris Hilton has an article and she's absolutely useless to society—but that doesn't mean she's not notable.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 14:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with exactly how notability is determined in this situation. If you could cite a couple guidelines, that would be helpful. According to the article, her claim to notability is that she appeared on a single magazine cover, in Nike ads, and was on a catwalk with four designers' dresses. A reference that I just now checked, however, states she has done considerably more.[54] But even so, it would still be nice to know where the "cut-off" is for model notability. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 15:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is no firm cut-off point for notability—is there ever? Some people make the "all models are just pretty faces and not notable" argument; others claim one magazine cover alone is enough to assert notability, regardless of coverage (or lack of it, I should say). The WP:ENT policy is what covers models, but I usually just go by what's in the model's Fashion Model Directory profile. If she's had several major magazine covers (like Vogue) and several ad campaigns for commonly-known designers (Chanel, Gucci, Prada, Hilfiger, etc.), I usually leave the article alone. (I ignore runway appearances because that's the entry point for most models and usually not at an indicator of notability.) In the case of a model like Swanepoel, appearances in the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show or Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue are almost always enough to establish notability because each are widely considered career highlights in modeling and receive a lot of press. In particular, Swanepoel looks to have become a Victoria's Secret Angel recently, the Angels being a group that gets a lot of attention in the US, a la Gisele Bundchen, Adriana Lima, Marisa Miller, etc.

That all said, and sorry to be long-winded, most models on Wiki are probably non-notable or borderline (I can't even recall how many I've PROD'ed or AfD'ed), so in most cases if you nominated the article for deletion or tagged it as non-notable, I probably wouldn't disagree, and lack of sourcing would make it an easy deletion.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 16:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, that was a very clear explanation. Your "runway rule of thumb" seems workable.

I tagged the article in passing when it appeared in the anti-vandalism tool showing changes by anonymous IPs, and assumed (incorrectly) that the article was representative of her accomplishments. Reading one of the references, it appears that the Wiki article has perhaps less than half of of what she's done. (She needs a new agent, or maybe new fans.)

On impulse, I just checked Playboy models, and was able to find some Wiki articles about those who accomplished nothing except posing for one issue. Those, it seems to me, do cross the line into non-notable. Swanepoel isn't in that class, she's a successful professional. But...I don't think I'll take the Playboy advocates on today. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with the "adult" models when you take that on. To save you the trouble though: all Playboy covermodels/"Playmates of the Month" are considered notable, regardless of coverage, from what I've gathered. The other models are fair game!  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 03:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

How disappointing. You aren't intrigued by a protracted, vitriolic, and futile confrontation with Playboy Enterprises and supporters? Then perhaps I'll suggest that you are oriented toward a pleasant and productive New Year! Best Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 03:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Try to work with me on this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Danish_poets -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Apologies. The citations will be very helpful to other readers. (I did retain the cited additions you made.) This type of list page is regularly used for self-promotion. I don't expect you'll have more problems, but if you do, consider putting a message the top of the article, "This page is undergoing major revision." Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 20:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Several of the "List of [nationality or language] poets" pages were created by editors from the categories in various language wikis. I understand the problem with notability and verifiability with this -- we risk importing the self-promoting going on in the other wikis (direct self promotion across languages is very unlikely, although I suppose it's possible). I vastly prefer to have footnotes on everything, but I've been more lax with lists like these for national or language poets because the benefit to readers seems much greater than the problem for readers due to the garbage that gets inserted -- but I have to admit, there's not a huge amount of harm. English Wikipedia lacks a lot of biographies on quite a few poets that turn out to be kind of important in their own national literatures (see the redlinks on the Danish page that are footnoted to the New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry, which mentions the top 30 or so poets from Denmark). If you feel strongly about this, ultimately you've got policy on your side, but please keep in mind what it says over at the fifth regular paragraph at WP:V on the possibility that some verification could be postponed. Please think about just how much we'd gain or lose in these particular situations. One area where removing redlinks has been very useful is at List of Indian poets, although it's in pretty good shape now. In the past, a lot of IPs were adding uncited redlinks there that didn't seem to be notable at all. A lot of India-related literature pages have problems with style and footnoting, so please consider taking a look in that area. Thanks for the comment. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

A comprehensive and experienced summary.

I was simply dealing with the article on the level — as apparently you surmised — of those countries who have had less experience with Wikipedia and have some difficulty adapting to Wiki standards of notability. You seem to be improving List of Danish poets significantly and substantially. Best Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 12:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tag. JohnWBarber (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

EvieEvEv and Noah Cyrus

Hi there! Thanks for taking over the watch on that little escapade. I think you were a little harsh on both of us. This is clearly a newcomer and I suspect a youngster. Ev responded positively to the suggestions I made about grammar and sourcing (appearing at one stage to enlist an adult's help with formating refs). S/he showed a desire to understand and comply with our styles and constraints which are neither intuitive or familiar to your average child. We cannot assume that the distinction between the promotional terms that he/she would be familiar with in the "real" world and the neutral tone we require would be immediately apparent. My view was to encourage someone who may develop a taste for the task and become a valuable editor. Threatening an early ban is hardly encouraging. And if it ends up a pig's ear, there's always the option to revert.

My last edit to her/his page was at 00:03, 3 January. You then added that I was "not being to the point" regarding the peacock and promotional language introduced in this edit made more than 2 hours after my last comment. Did I miss the loopback in the time continuum?

Anyway, no hard feelings on my part, and thanks again for taking over.

Oh, and thanks also for your support on my talk page. Occasional flippancy is one of my vices :)

All the best for 2010 -- Timberframe (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I had a vague intimation you might take "not being to the point" as a reflection on you, rather than what I intended, which was to alert EvieEvEv that there were other issues with her editing than just what you had mentioned. I could have soft-pedaled on EvieEvEv a bit; I should have been clearer that she needed to respond to editors, and perhaps ask before making changes. At the rate EvieEvEv was going, she really was a few edits away from being blocked, though. You (reasonably) reverted several of her edits in one day.[55] Even after several corrections, EvieEvEv didn't seem to understand that replacing your version with phrases including "upcoming actress following her big sister" and "slowly expanding in the acting world" probably wouldn't be encyclopedic, even if references were supplied. The only response she gave to the three editors removing her additions was "I have just expanded the introduction and given a summary on Noah Cyrus". No other words at all.

In the "anti-vandalism Wiki world" it may be important (as it definitely is in the real world with grafitti) to catch vandals quickly and remove their work, otherwise they get an emotional attachment to the amount of effort they have put in. I had an experience last year with a young editor who was politely corrected by many editors, and finally mentored by someone who just about to become an admin. Over a period of months, all the young editor did was grudgingly make corrections when she thought people were watching, then put similar material back again. Often with apologies, accusations, etc. Finally, she started a sockpuppet, imagining we wouldn't be able to figure out. It would have been better, I feel, to slap her down hard right at the beginning. She had no respect for the Wiki guidelines or other people's opinions. She wanted to turn the Wiki articles into her personal blogs. I sensed the same type of "fan content" addition here in Noah Cyrus, and was responding in part to that experience. As you imply, I probably should have qualified her situation to her more carefully. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

John Doe

Through a Wiki update error, my edit justification was lost. I removed: extraneous language, a (female!) picture having little relevancy, and pointless trivia, among 1000s of cases

See what you think of it now. --hydrox (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

pseudonyms

What is your real name? For whom do you do your paid work? I like the fact that your pseudonym evokes moderation rather than god-like vigilante empowerment (e.g. Tyrennius). In general, however, I would have more confidence in Wikipedia if its editors didn't hide behind pseudonyms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swimmer40 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Swimmer40, those questions could constitute outing, please tread lightly. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 13:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm self-employed. I have various university degrees, have worked in a number of fields, and am (or was) considered an expert in three fields (with professional "peer-reviewed" publications, i.e., not Wikipedia). None are related to art or sociology.

Being on Wikipedia's anti-vandalism patrol, I do a lot of work with vandals, so I prefer not to give my real name, except to administrators. Perhaps mercifully, I don't have a "public face", so unlike you, I get to avoid the personal confrontations with the less rational.

As for my pseudonym, well, quite apart from working on vandalism, I enjoy a good joke, even if it's on me. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 13:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The article Dignity

Thank you very much for your attention at Dignity. I much appreciate your help. PYRRHON  talk   17:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Noah Cyrus

I don't recall having ever heard her or seen her on anything, but that's no reason to let unsourced claims into the article. Woogee (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Piano non troppo (talk) 09:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

German Americans

Thank you for your comment and maybe I should have dicussed first- but well most edits are done withour discussion. I never considered it controverisal to mention that the group witch formed allways one of the 3 most numberous groups (and is today considered the most numberous group) was an integral part of forming the American society and identity , which is of course disticnt form the German society. The actual article liments the influence to such unimportant things like christmas trees and Baron von Steuben. Tradition in sience, cultur, protestant philosophie and and and are far more important then a christmas tree. But maybe you are right and things like this belong to the Americans-article. And most likely you are right and the edit was not that good, but well 195.243.51.34 (talk) 09:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course Germans have had a major impact on America. I still find it fascinating that there was debate which side the US should join in WWI. If it wasn't for the Germans, the US might not have landed a man on the moon. The issue is rather the unverifiable claims, the WP:PEACOCK. For example "one of the most important", that's a matter of opinion about what's "important". Many ethnic groups are important to the US, in different ways. I'm not sure I would care to identify one that *wasn't* important! Piano non troppo (talk) 09:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You are right. Most likely my motivation was a little bit patriotic in nature, which should not go into an encyclopaedia. But I had no bad or even arrogant intendions. I only think it is an important fact often forgotten, that the Germans next to the Irish and English are the central groups in the development of the "typicaly" white Americans. The influence of the African Americans is for example often highlighted and seperate mentioned here in Europe. Especially in the case of Anti-Americanism, which is not so seldom found under European "intelectuals" under the keywords of McDonald, Cars and Republicans the Europeans and others should know this developments are very close to use. :-) 195.243.51.34 (talk) 09:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Service awards proposal

Hello, Piano non troppo/Archive:PlanArchiveFromOuterSpace! I noticed you display a service award, and would like to invite you to join the discussion over a proposed revamping of the awards. If you have any opinions on the proposal, please participate in the discussion. Thanks! — the Man in Question (in question) 18:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Your understanding of copyright

Is flawed. Any author, may at any time, release their copyright to the public domain.Wjhonson (talk) 09:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is not incredibly deep, it mostly focuses on two areas where my job as an editor requires professional acumen. (I'm picking up Wiki-savvy as I go.) But what comment were you referring to?

The most common problems in Wiki are 1) Contributors not understanding that most of what's on the Internet is copyrighted, and cannot be freely used, and 2) People who do own the copyright to material, but don't understand that doesn't automatically mean they can use the material in Wiki. (E.g., companies cut-and-pasting from their company web sites.) Those people, I point one of a couple general directions, without getting into details. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 16:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

A contributor, uploaded images of his own book, to which he owns the copyright. He can release to us, his copyright, for our own use. You had objected to that, claiming that he could not do it.Wjhonson (talk) 08:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you let me know what image, article, or discussion you're referring to? My comment is probably either about: 1) The author has not demonstrated he does have copyright, or 2) The author has not filled out the paperwork quite correctly. Thanks, Piano non troppo (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Without poisoning the well, I will quote what you wrote : "However my other points stand, in particular that copyright violation is involved. If I finally have this correct, your photos and text were both from a book you wrote, that was published. Copying the entire substance of a subject is a copyright violation — even when you own the copyright it cannot be used in Wikipedia (without changing the original material's copyright status). Piano non troppo December 2009"

However what I stated above is that any author may upload their own work, and grant a copyright to Wikipedia, that is perfectly legitimate. You seem to imply in your quote that they cannot do that. They do not have to change the "original" material's copyright status, only to grant their "current" copyright to Wikipedia. That is, they do not have to change the past, only the present.Wjhonson (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, now I understand the situation that you're referring to. Again, I was trying to be clear, not write a dissertation on copyright law. For some time, many Wiki editors have flatly rejected cut-and-pasted material that is under copyright. This isn't correct, but a correct solution, to use GFDL or CC-BY-SA seems to be uninteresting to many to whom the suggestion is made.[56] I can see that this would be an unattractive solution to many companies, for example, who have no intention of making their material "sharable".

There are many other considerations, but when I see statements that are effectively on the level of "It's mine and I'll do what I like with it", there's reason to suspect the individual doesn't understand the situation. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Piano non troppo! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 5 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Gerald Gardner (scriptwriter) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Not knowing whether someone is actually concerned ... The material I added is not particularly controversial. After reading the additions of a number of other editors, that material doesn't seem particularly controversial, either. Citations would be preferable, but sometimes it takes rather rare references from 40 years ago to establish what today would be matter-of-course. Piano non troppo (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism on Magenta

I just noticed user Scottycrum1 has vandalized the page for Magenta, and I undid his/her change, but I missed tagging it as vandalism. I apologize, I am not very familiar with editing on Wikipedia. I didn't know if the page was on your watch, so I thought I'd report it personally just in case, especially since you have already gave him a formal warning about vandalizing that page. Roundchild (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

There's rarely an issue about formalities in Wikipedia when: a) Your heart was in the right place, and b) Your edits were correct. Somebody will help you with the protocol, if that happens to become important. Cheers and welcome! Piano non troppo (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

WSLS-TV Vandalism

Thanks for the note on procedure. I really don't spend enough time on Wikipedia to know what to do about such things. TripEricson (talk) 02:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

a minor mistake

hello Piano non troppo,

I am sorry but you have got the wrong guy. I did not edit Jean-Baptiste Maunier. your dealing with a hacker here. the only page I would ever edit is Leo Deutsch. and that's only because he is my great, grand, grandfather's brother. I am sorry to bother you. I just wanted to let you know.

your friend, --75.18.198.98 (talk) 06:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Babene

Hi, thanks for the message. You're probably referring in part to this edit [57].

An advantage to getting a Wikipedia account (even for a few edits) is that your work can't be mistaken for someone else using the same IP address. Depending on where you live, your IP address might change monthly or yearly ... and there's no telling when.

As for Leo Deusch, if you could add a reliable reference or two, that might be useful and interesting.... Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 07:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

hello Piano non troppo, that might be difficult because this information is family knowledge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.198.98 (talk) 07:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

hello Piano non troppo, that might be difficult because this information is family knowledge

your friend,--75.18.198.98 (talk) 07:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Babene

In that case, I'd be tempted to add at least a mention of it to the article's discussion page (but you didn't hear that from me)! One possible value is that a scholar conceivably would want to contact you. Don't leave your email address, of course, unless you want it to be spammed. Piano non troppo (talk) 07:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)